Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Draft RfC

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC - Are Secondary Schools Inherently Notable?

[edit]

Introduction : Secondary schools are, by definition, schools/colleges/academies offering fully accredited mainstream education that follows a general education curriculum to the minimum school leaving age or beyond in their respective countries. This generally dos not include primary/elementary schools, middle schools, distance learning organisations, or private institutions offering booster courses for exam preparation.

An informal policy has emerged over years of discussions regarding the notability of individual secondary school articles, which basically states that "Any secondary school which is verifiable is also notable". That policy has been repeatedly questioned and challenged, but seems to have generally held.

This RfC aims to question whether the "All secondary schools are inherently notable" concept has consensus and perhaps should be formalized in written policy, or whether it should be rejected, leaving secondary schools to same standards as other topics on Wikipedia.

Essays on the subject
Guidelines

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:FAILN

Policies

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Proposal 1

[edit]

Wikipedia should remain inclusive in relation to secondary schools, based on the rationale : Secondary schools do have some inherent notability and/or should be exempted from having to meet general notability guidelines

In deletion discussion, over 200 high schools have been accorded defacto notability (see here for details). Some 50,000 school articles have been kept based on this precedent, and the majority of AfD have been closed as 'keep'. Some Wikipedians feel that that a clear guideline should be established for the notability of high schools in which the status quo should be maintained, and written into an official Wikipedia guideline.

Proposal 2

[edit]

Wikipedia should remain inclusive in relation to secondary schools, based on the rationale : Secondary school articles should be kept provided that the school is verifiable.

In deletion discussion, over 200 high schools have been accorded defacto notability (see here for details). Some 50,000 school articles have been kept based on this precedent, and the majority of AfD have been closed as 'keep'. Some Wikipedians feel that that a clear guideline should be established for the notability of high schools in which the status quo should be maintained, and this proposal accurately represents the current practice and rationale.

Proposal 3

[edit]

Wikipedia should be more exclusive in relation to secondary schools, based on the rationale : Secondary schools don't have inherent notability, and shouldn't be afforded special treatment

Some editors do not see a compelling reason that secondary schools have inherent notability and feel that like the majority of other subjects on Wikipedia, secondary schools must meet Wikipedia:General notability guidelines. That is, secondary schools enjoy no special treatment either way, and each must be judged on its own merits, and deletion should be treated by normal processes on a case-by-case basis.

Proposal 4

[edit]

Wikipedia should have a specific policy on schools based on the rationale : What is needed is a reworking of Wikipedia:Notability_(schools) for all schools not a separate standard for high schools.

High schools are subject to different interpretations in different jurisdictions and a separate proposal for them still leaves the position of most schools unclear. What some editors feel is needed is a notability standard to cover the full range of schools.

When responding, please use the following format -

Standard RfC Disclaimer - This RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations civil.

Comments

[edit]

Discussion regarding the draft

[edit]

@User:Night of the Big Wind - Appreciate the enthusiasm, but this is just a draft. We will launch soon. Then you can register your opinion! NickCT (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any opening time Night of the Big Wind talk 01:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait a week so we can say that we gave everyone a fair chance to comment. NickCT (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For good measure you could add the nightmare scenario in the form of proposal 3: Secondary schools are not notable, unless they can proof to have something special that makes the outstanding in their field of work. This proposal would lead to mass deletion, what so many project-members fear, because it lays the threshold even higher than WP:GNG. To be true: I do not support this proposal!!! Night of the Big Wind talk 20:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you go further than the GNG though? Substantially further in my view. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Big Wind began this entire discussion, but ironically, this would appear to make his proposals for deletion of schools rather moot. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that all schools are always non-notable. But as a secondary school is mentioned in a 1962 encyclopedia, who am I to challenge that? And there were several other sources that proof is notability, including "famous" alumni. Contrary to what you might think, I am not a blind deletionist. Night of the Big Wind talk 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; this is pointless. Firstly, it is predicated on a misapprehension; no-one claims that high schools are 'inherently notable' just that they should be kept on pragmatic grounds, as are designated settlements, fauna and flora, named bridges, numbered highways, airports, super-regional malls, railway stations, high court judges, peers of the realm, religious saints etc. When there is so much work to do on Wikipedia the thought of fighting 50,000 high school articles only to prove that most of them are notable makes me shiver! We have had several attempted standards on schools (and if we are to try again why not include all schools?) and they have all failed in the face of the determined opposition of a minority of editors. What we have is a pragmatic position (redirect most elementary schools (except those clearly notable) and keep high schools (except those that can't be verified)) which allows us to move on to more urgent stuff. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to proof that a school is notable, when it notability is challenged. No editor will do even a hundred at a time. Every article is judged on his own merits, so comparing with other articles is useless. Night of the Big Wind talk 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but your project appears to be one of personally going through school articles, challenging them, and listing them for RfA - which appear to be either closed as keep or redirected. You have even withdrawn one of your own nominations because you have decided now that a school that exists is notable. What we need to do at all costs is to avoid this kind of unnecessary bureaucracy, discussion, and use of resources that could be better invested elsewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And deny the existing policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? It states clear enough that Wikipedia is not a directory. Night of the Big Wind talk 03:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep bringing up new arguments in spite of the fact that you have withdrawn one of your AfDs today because you admit that the school exists and is therefore notable. With all due respect, I really think it's time you decided what you really want to do here. What most of us want to do is to end this time wasting discussion and get back to some other work. I suggest you read what TerriersFan and other experienced editors have posted above and here, and the the essays that have been listed.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re "it is predicated on a misapprehension; no-one claims that high schools are 'inherently notable" -I'll adjust the wording to try to address this. But note, calling this "pointless" seems somewhat short sighted. If this RfC comes up favoring your position, you can actually use it to write policy and quash future debate. NickCT (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no-one says "should be exempted from having to meet general notability guidelines" either. What we say is that with sufficient research experience shows that GNG will normally be met but that research, particularly for Indian sub-continent schools generally requires local library searches that cannot be carried out in 7 days so lets be pragmatic. If you want a useful discussion then propose a through going standard for schools. Meanwhile, I will restructure the questions to reflect the actual issue. TerriersFan (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind that I changed your proposals in nr. 3 and 4. It is not a rewrite of the original questions, it are a POV-sided new questions. To my opinion, those questions are not useful for a serious RfC. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but in what way does the existence of articles on secondary schools contravene WP:NOTDIRECTORY? None of the eight categories listed there have any bearing on these articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated in the lead: However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly you have got to be kidding. This is becoming tiring now. Lets get it over and done with. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, mate, I am not going to shut up for your convenience. This is now the second time that you asked it. You better come with some valid arguments. Let NickCT's RfC run its course, for good or for bad. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop calling me mate I'm not your mate. Im another volunteer like you. Im sick of you saying other people are trying to shut you up Tell me where somebody has nobody has done that because all i can see is you battering the hell out of this. We are sick of this. Ive said lets get it over and done with i was referring to the RFC. This needs done before one of us says something towards you we regret because its seriously getting hard. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem, mate! Night of the Big Wind talk 14:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It is stated in the lead: However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed." Indeed. However, you have not stated how school articles meet this criterion! A directory is a "list of names, addresses etc., of specific classes of people or organizations, often in alphabetical order or in some classification". You cannot twist that definition to include any article you don't approve of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know schools are organisations. And it is a special class of organizations. Often held in an alphabetical order in a category. (But Wikipedia also lists its articles in alphabetical order) Night of the Big Wind talk 00:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I assume that here you're being deliberately obtuse. A directory is a "list". A Wikipedia article is not a list (unless it is a list, which is not what we're discussing here!), but an article. It contains more than the name, address etc (unless, maybe, it is a stub, in which case it has the capacity to be expanded), and therefore does not fall into the definition given for directories. The fact that we have lists or categories of articles is irrelevant, since the articles themselves are more than that. As I said, you cannot twist definitions to make them suit your own purposes. If you define these articles as directory entries, then you could define any of our articles as directory entries. Which means "What Wikipedia is not" would actually apply to the whole of Wikipedia! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, mate, I don't. I only used the same type of silly argument as you did while questioning it Night of the Big Wind talk 14:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ladies. The level of civility is reaching danger point. I think if you were trying to be generous you might say that a some reasonable interpretations of WP:NOTDIRECTORY might discourage the mass listings of high schools.
I appreciate the extra proposals added, but I think many of them were already encapsulated by proposals 1 & 2.
@TerriersFan - In one of the proposal you suggested, you inferred that deletion discussions demonstrated notability of most 2ndary schools. I think if you read a lot of them the main gist of the arguments weren't "Let's keep b/c this is notable" more than they were "Let's keep b/c we always keep secondary schools". NickCT (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Big Wind is just bombarding us now with spent ammunition. I think it's time to realise that no one is taking this deletion proposal seriously any more, and no more than they did at all the other peren discussions. Perhaps we should all get back to work on our schools and restaurants and concentrate on building this encyclopedia rather than looking for obscure ways to tear it down. Server space is not a premium, but our volunteer time is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing as many articles as possible is not always constructive. I regard quality more important then numbers. And I adhere to that when writing my articles about restaurants. I can only hope you do the same... Night of the Big Wind talk 15:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง - re "Server space is not a premium, but our volunteer time is." - I think you've touched on the old deletionist, inclusionist debate. While I respect the point, please realize that comment is subject to POV. NickCT (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, ever since I've worked intensively on school articles for a couple of years, I've often said I don't really care one way or another. I would also like a bright line and if there were I would implement the policy accordingly. However, there is little chance of getting that bright line, as is being demonstrated here, and there is that old established precedent, so I think we are all wasting our time here, and my POV is that leaving the schools on the server isn't doing any particular harm - it's got nothing to do with deletionism/inclusionism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does harm, as it clutters the encyclopedia with stuff that should not be in the encyclopedia at all. Every article should pass WP:GNG, including schools. And it does cost valuable volunteer time, because every article has to go through the New Page Patrol, they (often) need to be wikified and categorized and, when challenged, it is seldom the author defending his/her article. Night of the Big Wind talk 15:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That precedent mainly exists because nobody was stubborn enough to challenge it on his merits. Night of the Big Wind talk 15:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is getting uncivil we all know its because Night of the Big Wind is making it so. He has been told once to stop calling me his Mate and I'm telling him again its getting offensive i am not his mate none of us here are his so he needs to stop it now. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. You are the one who is getting aggressive and uncivil! Night of the Big Wind talk 15:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Nobody felt it correct to carry out a systematic and very biased campaign against schools also I'm really seeing no support for you. Your little restaurants are hardly notable maybe we should start an RFC on that because i don't see half your articles passing GNG when looked at very thoroughly. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have better arguments that making ad hominem attacks? Tssss... And about the restaurants: you are free to challenge them, if you dare. Night of the Big Wind talk 15:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its your attacks that have got us here. I like how you say that yet you still don't stop calling me your mate or bating us all and don't dare me because the way your bating is going i may do that. Im starting to very more strongly about the subject especially given streets and other public institutions have the same kind of policy we have here but you don't seem to be challenging that. If I'm honest when you started this if you had went the proper way about it i actually may have supported working on a decent proposal but you had no interest in that just mass deletion. not improving or helping anything. How is this notable Les Patrons Cuisiniers Its virtually all red linked so if their not notable then how is the list. I have far better things to like actually contributing to the encyclopaedia rather than discussing your petter charades anyway but if it has to be then it will be. I Wouldn't mind this if i saw your support but i see none. The problem here is you forget how many people edit school articles why do they do that its because they think they should be here. As many of those will come out of the woodwork as yours so called support which i have yet to see. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That it is an attack is your perception. There was a proposal of my side to start the discussion with, you can look that up straight away.
I take your critique on the restaurants and related articles as a poor mans attempt to deflect the case from the real case: that you do not have proper arguments to keep the present "all secondary schools are notable"-rule in place. Please lower your anger about this and come up with arguments. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NotBW, It's your opinion that it "clutters the encyclopedia with stuff that should not be in the encyclopedia at all". I see very few other editors supporting your stance. Given that we work by consensus and are not a bureaucracy, would you not agree that it's time to simply acknowledge the status quo and accept that a majority of editors who care to express an opinion support it? Suggesting that a majority of editors would support you if they were given the chance goes against the evidence, since anybody can edit anything and the main forum for discussion of this issue has been AfDs, which are widely viewed by editors; and most of those editors who are bothered enough to express an opinion have gone for "keep". Putting it on another forum is not likely to get any wider readership or any wider spread of opinion than AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO! Even schools have to adhere to WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, once again, what you're basically saying is that, although Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and is run by the consensus of its editors, and although you are a pretty much lone voice, you are the one who is correct and, despite much precedent as to other editors' opinions, yours is the only voice that should be listened to, because you are the one quoting a guideline at us. I'll quote you a few policies: WP:Consensus, WP:BURO and WP:IAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, instead of ignoring a rule that is faulty in my opinion, I challenge that rule. If I ignore it, the faulty rule stays in place, causing more damage. Wikipedia is best served by speaking out and challenging, not by shutting up and ignoring.
And to keep it simple: if the "all secondary schools are notable"-rule was a proper one and adhering to WP:GNG, you guys could have come up with proper arguments that were convincing. But you guys failed on that. As you know, I use the name Night of the Big Wind, not Don Quixote. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is at an impass. I suggest we just let the RfC settle this, then write policy, so-as-to create the "bright line" that was previously mentioned. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many times does it have to be said? It is not a rule, it is a consensus. For the umpteenth time, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy! Guidelines do not trump consensus by the editing community. That is the bottom line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. Official, community supported guidelines outweigh a projectlimited consensus. Indeed Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but it is also not an anarchy where every wikiproject can overrule the official policies and/or guidelines. Night of the Big Wind talk 09:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to ask one more nasty question about Wikipedia:Verifiability in relation to Wikipedia:Notability. What should be verified by reliable sources: the mere existence of the subject or its notability? Night of the Big Wind talk 17:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to "verify notability" (i.e. you don't have do find a RS that says "Topic X is notable", to assume Topic X is notable). All material in WP is subject to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Any material in WP should verifiable in a reliable source. NickCT (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are wrong. Looking at WP:GNG it states "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. and "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. To me, that looks like in is the notability that has to be proofed, not the existence! It does not say that sources make an existing subject notable. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you find in reliable sources "significant coverage" that "address(es) the subject directly in detail" then the subject is notable. You don't need to find a source that explicitly states "This subject is notable". That would be sorta silly. Do you think you could find a source that says explicitly "JFK was a notable figure"? If you couldn't, would that mean JFK wasn't a notable figure? Course not. There are tons of books/articles/shows about JFK. That's what makes him notable.... NickCT (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. How on earth can you possibly prove notability? Notability can only ever be subjective. Some subjects are clearly notable without debate (JFK, Elizabeth II, France), some are clearly non-notable (my next-door neighbour, your local corner shop), others fall in the grey area and need to be debated at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ever realize that "indepth coverage" suggest more interesting facts then "to proof something exists"? Night of the Big Wind talk 23:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that was a meaningless sentence. But attempting to decipher what you're talking about, if you mean that "in depth coverage" means more than simply saying something exists, indeed it does. However, it does not "prove notability", since that would be impossible. Nothing "proves notability". Also note two points: (1) stubs are perfectly acceptable if they are capable of being expanded into decent articles, which almost all school articles clearly are. Articles do not need to jump into the world fully formed. (2) "Significant coverage" does not have to come from online sources. If the existence of a school can be verified then a stub can be created about it. Further information can then be added at a later date from either online or print sources. There is therefore a certain amount of conflict between the two guidelines WP:Stub and WP:GNG, since stubs do not by definition provide significant coverage and are not likely to include sources that include significant coverage. There is a presumption in many cases that if a topic is likely to be notable (as we have generally presumed secondary schools to be) then further information can be found at a later stage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On proposals

[edit]
I am trying to be constructive here- and read the five proposal and reflected on them over dinner. Now there are three proposals which removed some of what I was about to say- but just focusing on the quality of the question I still see they are problematic to someone who hasn't being following the history. I will just comment on the questions.
  • The first response is that one can logically strongly support both one and three.
  • The use of and/or in proposal one means that result is open to challenge.
  • It is not clear in the second proposal whether one means 'All secondary schools' or 'there exist secondary schools where'
  • Proposal three needs to be reworked to: Wikipedia:Notability_(schools) should be reworked defining clearly the standards for high schools.
The descriptions for each proposal wanders on focus, and could be used to invalidate a conclusion
  • In one: Some Wikipedians feel that that a clear guideline should be established for the notability of high schools in which the status quo should be maintained, and written into an official Wikipedia guideline. Is a contradiction or extension of the proposal
  • In two: This over verbose- it should say Some editors believe that secondary schools have no inherent notability and feel that secondary schools must meet Wikipedia:General notability guidelines. Each secondary schools each must be judged on its own merits, and deletion should be treated by normal processes on a case-by-case basis. 50,000 articles will have to be examined retrospectively.
  • In three: Most of this is a main space comment. With the new wording it is superfluous, with the old confusing
The interrelationship with deletion, and retrospective deletion needs to be expressed in the lead.
I am more and more convinced that all of this is a total red herring, as all UK secondary schools pass the new test or can be worked up to that standard- and moving to France, or Germany the same would apply.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responding point-by-point to a couple points
  • The first response is that one can logically strongly support both one and three.
  • Agree. They overlapped. Deleted Three.
  • The use of and/or in proposal one means that result is open to challenge.
  • If you support proposal 1 you are rejecting notability concerns for 2ndary schools, regardless of the and/or.
  • It is not clear in the second proposal whether one means 'All secondary schools' or 'there exist secondary
  • I don't understand this point.
  • Proposal three needs to be reworked to: Wikipedia:Notability_(schools) should be reworked defining clearly the standards for high schools.
With the type of discussion that has gone on here on this topic- I am taking this down to first principles- belt and braces stuff- In a deletion debate are we going to get some one saying that: the line means that some highs schools have no notablility but that doesn't mean all high schools have no notability- and this high school is in the excluded class so must be considered notable. Or are we saying no high school has inherent notability so all high schools must be treated in the same way as an article on any other institution. Point 3, I think that is what we would like it to say. I just tweaked the grammar. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos propsal 3

[edit]

Shortcut to proposal 3
Proposal 3 is a good one, but I think I could be difficult to realize.

1) Each class (primary, secondary, tertiary) has some many differences among them, that one policy would get a horrible length. Secondly, it could be very difficult to get consensus and a vote is almost hopeless. Splitting them in three seperate policies would be easier to handle and is more interesting for experts. Is sufficiently clear in what class every school belongs?
2) From what foundation will we build the policy? It could be "No school is notable, unless ..." or "Every school is notable, unless ..." To my opinion the burden of evidence (which lies at the author who adds) will fit best with the first one. The original author then has to proof his school is notable, what makes a deletion discussion much more positive (because people will try to help to improve the article in order to keep it). The second foundation give, in my opinion, a far greater risk on very nasty discussions...
3)No policy, designed to be applied worldwide, will always properly fit. I recommend additional guidelines to tailor-make it for specific situations that could not be covered in the policy.

Still, it will be a hell of a job. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a big job but a possible one with good will all round. Most high school articles can be made to meet GNG so a lot of work to produce a standard, to deal with the few that can't, seems pointless to me. If we are going to put work in then let's try to produce an ll-embracing standard. I will shortly put suggested notability criteria in my user space, for views, and link here. TerriersFan (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted the first cut at User:TerriersFan/Notability of schools. TerriersFan (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have written down a few of my ideas down on User:Night of the Big Wind/Notability of schools. Still very incomplete, but I am still working on it. Advice and comments are welcome on the talkpage. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Still thinking how I can declare Caltech and the Ivy League universities not notable without provoking a military invasion in Ireland. [reply]
Is there anywhere you'd want us to discuss these btw? Fwiw my initial impression is that they go far beyond anything found in the GNG - I think can probably show notability with regard to the GNG with an Ofsted report, a regional newspaper report (or three), a county council school profile and a national government school profile - certainly with regard to how WP:ORG is written anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can debat if an Ofsted-report is a useful and reliable third party source. It is a goverment organisation, although they claim to be independent and impartial. I would not rely solely on an Ofsted-report. Reading through a report it did not convince me that the report will proof notability for every school covered in their reports. Quality of teachings, as long as not award-winning, adds little to the notability of a school. Night of the Big Wind talk 02:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to use an Ofsted report's introduction to cite things like the size of the school, any specialisms, any awards it may have won recently and so on. They're quite helpful from that pov. Many editors like to include the most recent Ofsted grading - often, it seems, pro-school editors wanting to push a pov. They're helpful to cite to calm such editors down from making claims which are a little over the top in my experience. They can also be helpful when establishing when a school went into special measures and so on.
As an only source - no, certainly not. The GNG criteria almost certainly require the couple of articles in regional press. But as a source which can provide some greater breadth of coverage - as well as providing a number of useful facts - they're certainly reliable (although, let's be clear, I don't believe that Ofsted is in any way reliable when it comes to judging the quality of teaching...). Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can give your thoughts on the talkpage: User talk:Night of the Big Wind/Notability of schools. Let us see what we can build together! Night of the Big Wind talk 11:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The set of conditions under which a school is considered notable or not-notable, will never be completely watertight for all schools under all circumstances. So I consider this an important part of my draft:
Night of the Big Wind talk 00:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 4

[edit]

Shortcut to proposal 4
I have added back proposal 4 which was removed for no good reason that I can see. Proposal 4 reflects why many of us wish to keep high school articles in contrast to Proposal 1 which misrepresents the inclusionist position. TerriersFan (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, for a RFC you need a clear, neutral question. Prop. 4 is clearly biased. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In their own way all the props are biased. Prop 1, for example, contains the emotive term 'inherently notable' which will prove a red rag to the hypothetical bull. However, I have rewritten it. TerriersFan (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TerriersFan - I appreciate what you're trying to get across with Prop 4, but I really feel that the concept is contained within Prop 1. In other words, WP:GNG is generally the standard for inclusion. If WP:GNG is not the standard for inclusion, then only WP:V is necessary. I doubt anyone is going to argue that something that doesn't meet WP:V should get included.
If I rewrite the summary of Prop 1 to read "Secondary schools do have some inherent notability and/or should be exempted from having to meet general notability guidelines. Secondary school articles should be kept provided that the school is verifiable.", can we eliminate Prop 4? The reason I say this is b/c I want to keep the number of propositions down to an absolute minimum for simplicity's sake.
I don't understand why "inherent" is an emotive term. Have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Inherent notability? NickCT (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I am aware of that essay, but nonetheless the term 'inherent notability' is considered by many editors, in my experience, to be inflammatory. My main objection to Prop 1 is that reflects a position that no-one argues for; in other words it is set up to fail. Prop 4 reflects the actual position that has developed over many years of AfDs and, consequently, it cannot be excluded from a constructive RFC. TerriersFan (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Let's keep it. I removed "since experience shows that, with sufficient research, the vast majority will meet general notability guidelines", b/c I don't think that's accurate. NickCT (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have researched countless high school articles and, in my experience, it is true. Before I put it back perhaps you would indicate which schools you have researched and found to the contrary? TerriersFan (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say the number of highschools I've looked at are countless, but if you grab a random handful of secondary school deletion discussions, half of the keep votes generally use the justification "Keep b/c high schools are always notable", or "Keep b/c secondary schools have inherent notability". NickCT (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When responding, please use the following format

[edit]

This section is fundamentally in error. The initial stages should be a discussion aimed at achieving consensus. Starting with support/oppose votes polarises the discussion from the off. At first the debate should be free ranging. When a consensus has formed around or against the various proposals that is the time to call a vote. TerriersFan (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "This section", what exactly do you mean? Discussion on this topic has been on-going for literally years without a clear cut RfC.... NickCT (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the section in your draft RFC with exactly the same title as this section! In any case I do not see any broad consensus for an RFC in the form that you propose. In the event that such consensus emerges then we should start it with a discussion not an attempt for a support/oppose vote. The reason is that any standard has to obtain consensus and whether any of the proposal ultimately get a numerical majority doesn't mean that it has attained consensus. However, at the moment, I am not seeing a basis on which the RFC could go forward. TerriersFan (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Ok I see the section heading now. I like keeping RfCs to this format. It makes things clear. Note, we're not asking for anyone to oppose, just support the solutions they like best! We're not looking for a numerical majority. We're looking to see if there is a consensus on this matter, and that is most clearly demonstrated by a super majority of folks saying "Yes, all highschools are notable". A number of people have requested an RfC. I think that's sufficient grounds for launching one.... NickCT (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1

[edit]

The and/or recently inserted into proposal one makes it unsuitable for voting on - which one would I be meaning if I !voted for it? I'm really not sure that exempting anything from the GNG is really a good idea either, although I'm really not very clear about the practical distinction between proposal 1 and proposal 2 anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re - "practical distinction between proposal 1 and proposal 2 anyway" - Terriers insisted on proposal 2. I'm not sure how they are different either.
re - "exempting anything from the GNG" - But that's basically what the entire debate is about. So many deletion discussions for 2ndary schools have ended with "Don't delete, b/c 2ndary schools are inherently notable", essentially exempting an article from having to demonstrate notability. NickCT (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Draft_RfC&oldid=1138357398"